What’s interesting in the news today?
1. So is this why Obama and Dems are so against Bibi’s speech later today?
From TheBlaze “Ynet reported that the Israeli official said Netanyahu would disclose some of the elements of the emerging agreement with Iran in his address to Congress.
The Obama administration has fiercely opposed Netanyahu’s address to Congress, calling the invitation from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) a break in diplomatic protocol. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned about the danger should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has vowed to annihilate the Jewish state.
“We are not here to offend President Obama, whom we respect very much,” the Israeli official said, according to the Times of Israel. “The prime minister is here to warn, in front of any stage possible, the dangers” of the deal currently being discussed.”
“Haaretz reported that the official said Israel would lend its support to a “good deal” that would thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons’ ambitions, but for now, Netanyahu needs to warn Congress about the “far-flung concessions” currently underway.”
______________________________________
2. Osama Bin Laden’s Iran ties.
From TheWeeklyStandard “This week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.
More than 1 million documents and files were captured by the Navy Seals who raided bin Laden’s safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011. One year later, in May 2012, the Obama administration released just 17 of them. While there is some overlap between the files introduced as evidence in Brooklyn and those that were previously made public in 2012, much of what is in the trial exhibits had never been made public before.
The files do not support the view, promoted by some in the Obama administration, that bin Laden was in “comfortable retirement,” “sidelined,” or “a lion in winter” in the months leading up to his death. On the contrary, bin Laden is asked to give his order on a host of issues, ranging from the handling of money to the movement of terrorist operatives.
Some of the key revelations in the newly-released bin Laden files relate to al Qaeda’s dealings with Iran and presence in Afghanistan.
A top al Qaeda operative asked bin Laden for permission to relocate to Iran in June 2010 as he plotted attacks around the world. That operative, Yunis al Mauritani, was a senior member of al Qaeda’s so-called “external operations” team, and plotted to launch Mumbai-style attacks in Europe.” As THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported, the al Qaeda cell selected to take part in al Mauritani’s plot transited through Iran and some of its members received safe haven there after the planned attacks were thwarted.”
______________________________________
3. A federal judge ruled the Obama admin lied about transparency and needs to stop discriminating against conservatives. But this time it’s the EPA, not the IRS.
From TheWashingtonTimes “A federal judge warned the EPA on Monday not to discriminate against conservative groups in how it responds to open-records requests, issuing a legal spanking to the agency that he said may have lied to the court and showed “apathy and carelessness” in carrying out the law.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he couldn’t prove that officials intentionally destroyed documents, but he described as “absurdity” the way the Environmental Protection Agency handled a Freedom of Information Act request from the Landmark Legal Foundation and then the court case stemming from it — including late last week admitting that it misled the court about how it went about searching for documents.
In a scorching 25-page opinion, the judge accused the agency of insulting him by first claiming it had conducted a full search for records, then years later retracted that claim in a footnote to another document without giving any explanation for how it erred.
“The recurrent instances of disregard that EPA employees display for FOIA obligations should not be tolerated by the agency,” the judge said. “This court would implore the executive branch to take greater responsibility in ensuring that all EPA FOIA requests — regardless of the political affiliation of the requester — are treated with equal respect and conscientiousness.””
______________________________________
4. This will shock nobody. The Obama/Hillary State Dept knew within minutes it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration. They also knew within 2 hours who was responsible. So why all the lies?
From JudicialWatch “First “OpsAlert@State.gov” email at 4:07 PM on September 11, 2012, reports, “… diplomatic mission is under attack … 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well … Stevens in the compound safe haven”
Email at 6:06 PM September 11, 2012, states terrorist group, “Ansar al Sharia Claims Responsibility.”
“Judicial Watch announced today that on February 11, 2015, it uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents were produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511). The documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.
Judicial Watch lawsuit focused on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S, Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes but is not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
The chain of internal emails tracks the events surrounding the terrorist attack in real time beginning immediately upon its inception.”
______________________________________
5. The Obama admin is filling diplomatic posts with political hacks.
From TheWashingtonExaminer “Career diplomats are finding that they can’t advance to top State Department posts such as ambassadorships because President Obama has stuffed political appointees into those jobs, the most ever in his second term.
“Yes, it’s a problem,” said Robert Silverman, president of the American Foreign Service Association. “This is an ongoing struggle. We need to maintain the ability for our top people to go straight to the top,” he said.
The issue is a big one: While the State Department has a good record for hiring a diverse workforce of diplomats and experts who often take hardship posts to move up the ladder, the Obama White House is keeping way too many of the best jobs for its political allies.
Just look at the numbers. Silverman’s group said that 40.6 percent of Obama’s second term ambassadorial positions, the top jobs, have gone to political hacks, with 59.4 to career foreign service careerists. Some Obama picks have been criticized for having no experience in or knowledge of the country they are being sent to.”
No experience, or knowledge of the country he’s serving…….. Yep, sounds like Obama too. 😆
______________________________________
Wandering Views 
#1. Israel is a bone in the throat of the Muslim countries around there. It was from the beginning. The two cultures cannot live together. Someday, somehow, it will have to be settled.
LikeLike
People who can’t back-up e-mails, or let high level government officials (such as Hillary Clinton) get away with using private e-mail accounts for official government business so that there is no record of them, have no business regulating the Internet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t take Time magazine. But my SS teacher gave me a copy Sunday because he thought I might be interested in an article. I was. It is about ISIS. The last paragraph reads, concerning to coalition to take Mosul:
“But that’s a trap. As bad as these people are, there is room for things to get much worse. And they will unless the U.S. and its latest coalition have the discipline at last to think all the way through to the end. The question is not beating ISIS. It’s what comes after that. More than ever, that question needs an answer.”
Very true. I’ve said this before, but I supported the Viet Nam war until I went to the Naval War College in 1978. There I met several officers who had participated in that war. I asked, and none could answer. “How do you know when you’ve won?”
We had a clear objective in WW II and considered the culture and were greatly successful with Japan and Germany because we controlled the outcome.
We saved South Korea, but blundered when we let McArthur push too far north.
We went into Viet Nam on the pretense of an attack that never occurred, and pulled out in shame to leave our friends in the south to be butchered by the Communist.
We saved Kuwait in 1991, but that’s all with no lasting consequences.
We got rid of Sadaam and Kahhafi and left chaos.
It seems that since 1945 we have blundered through with a vague concept of “democracy” for people who don’t know what democracy is, and no thought of the end game. Defeating communism was a goal, Creating a viable society was not.
LikeLike
Powerful speech.
LikeLike
It was a powerful speech. I don’t know how much effect it will have on the administration. But Congress is with him. He mentioned the problem of removing restrictions after ten years. What he didn’t mention is the principle of Hudaybiyya. That is the principle that Islam is not obliged to keep a treaty.
In 628 Mohammed made a ten year treaty with the Quraysh tribe because he was weaker than they were. But when Mohammed gained strength, he broke the treaty. Since Mohammed can’t do wrong, Hudaybiyya became an Islamic principle.
Robert Spencer, in The Truth about Muhammad, says, p. 139, “The breaking of the treaty in this way would reinforce the principle that nothing was good except what was advantageous to Islam, and nothing evil except what harmed Islam. ….the principle that treaties in general could only be concluded on a temporary basis…..and could only be entered into for the purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gather strength to fight again more efficiently.”
LikeLike
“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.” — Netanyahu
LikeLike
On Netanyahu’s reception:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/observations-on-netanyahus-reception-by-congress.php
” … To say that Netanyahu’s welcome was warm would be an understatement: it was rapturous. President Obama has never gotten such an enthusiastic reception for a State of the Union speech before the same audience. And the enthusiasm was bipartisan: Democrats were on their feet cheering, just like Republicans. …
” … Perhaps the administration didn’t fear his making the arguments (he has before) one more time, as much as it feared what we saw before the speech even began: a stark demonstration of where the American people stand in the conflict between Iran’s mullahs and, not just Israel, but Western civilization.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awwww… poor Nancy. 🙄
She and some of her fellow Dems are like school in the summertime…. no class.
I guess they saw what the American people did, a leader who is everything Obama isn’t.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414744/pelosi-exits-chamber-netanyahu-joel-gehrke
“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made her lack of enthusiasm for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech apparent throughout the remarks, applauding half-heartedly and then quickly exiting the chamber after the speech, before Netanyahu did.”
_______________________________
Bibi was gracious toward Obama, even though he disagrees with him. Barry could learn something here, but his ego probably won’t allow it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414739/netanyahu-lavishes-praise-obama-speech-i-called-president-and-he-was-there-brendan
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned the other cheek during his joint speech before Congress on March 3, praising President Obama even while the White House snubs him and seeks to discredit his stance on Iranian nuclear negotiations.
“We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” he said. “Some of it is widely known . . . Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well-known.”
The prime minister listed all the times he called Obama and received immediate aid, including the 2010 Carmel forest fire and the siege of the Israeli embassy in Cairo during the 2011 unrest.”
LikeLike